The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Good question, but........

If it had been through Mark Heist and confirmed as original (as this one has) then I would accept it.

Dracha rightly so, because there was never any discussion about his watches, but always a discussion about the person.

http://www.ebay.de/itm/BREITLING-Uhr-Co ... 3f09c942cf

I kind of agree with this hypothesis...unless someone can dig up proof that the non-digital AVIs were somehow produced concurrently with the more conventional 15-minute counter models, which is not how I/we understand the current chronology.

Alternately this watch could be seen as:

A) Further proof for the "Breitling mis-stamped some 9xx,xxx casebacks with 8xx,xxx by accident" theory if one is a booster of that. This watch does seem more like a late 50s style.

OR

B) Further proof that Breitling occasionally assembled old cases/previously stamped backs (sometimes years) out of sequence, despite their otherwise pristine chronological practices ...if one is inclined to believe that.

Best,
T.

First off, has anyone seen this type of AVI with the manufacturers rotating bezel defect? This is a very early AVI.
I am confident this watch is original (with the exception of the casing ring spring). Mark Heist at Horological Services stated in 2010 that this is the case and verified 1953 having been the year of manufacture. I trust his knowledge especially with regards to the Vintage Breitling line. I have also had the chronograph examined by other watchmakers and have had the same diagnosis. Besides, this chronograph has been in a box for over 30 years. I do not believe the back case was swapped. I would not think that it was considered a collectors item in the mid 1970's. Moreover I find it difficult to believe that someone had the foresight to know to swap parts 20 some years after it was manufactured. This one was made by Breitling, shipped by Breitling and recieved to the states by Breitling USA in '53. All information is good information. I look forward to more discusion on this topic. By the way, this is the proof that a non-digital Breitling AVI was made in 1953. Certain German person? What? Either way, this is appears to be a unique Breitling, that is for sure.

First off my oppologies for maybe being blunt but english is my 2nd language and I dont always have the grammar to always be politically correct



What exactly do you mean with "the manufacturers rotating bezel defect" ??



Yes, I agree its early but the dial points to a second generation , not a 1st generation



I agree that Mark has a lot of knowledge , I also dare say that on this forum there's more knowledge combined than any single person or even Breitling themselves have. personally I would never trust the opinion of one when others have doubts. I am not saying I am right but I am questioning certain points of a watch , points that I dont understand and then seek clarification



Thats my point , as it wasnt considered a collection item no one would give it a second thought 'repairing damage' which may be the case here
and 30 years in possesion doesnt mean a lot when there's 30 years prior to that when you dont know what happened to the watch



Thats a very bold statement to make for a watch thats 60 years old , made by a company that no longer has records to prove anything, but statements like this tend to kill any discussion quite quickly



I have been in manufacturing most of my life and I am not a believer in 'unique' pieces . Most watches , like most everything else, are mass produced products with strict "Bill of Materials" there's literally 100's and probably 1000's of watches made in each series and all come out the same with a set set of components and as such I dont believe the "non-digital Breitling AVI was made in 1953" hypothesis as Breitling was still making the "digital Breitling AVI " in 1953 , making a single watch with new specs while still producing the old ones would be bad manufacturing practice

So unless other pieces surface which have all the same characteristics I stick to my initial thought , which is that this watch did not leave the factory like this.

Btw , its still a nice watch with a dial and case in great condition

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

one more comment/question , but this is a secondary thing and not all that important

If the export code is BOW , that would mean Breitling themselves imported in to the US , which is prior to their agreement with Wakmann as it would have a WOG export code.
But with the BOW code that this AVI has, why would the watch come with a Wakmann box ? or was there an agreement between the 2 companies before the WOG export code was implemented ?

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

Excuse Dracha, but Breitling has made both models parallel in 1953. I have seen 4 or 5 of this non digital models from 1953 in my life. Compare with this here:
http://www.ebay.de/itm/BREITLING-Uhr-Co ... 9655970971

that watch , here's *my* opinion and from first glance observations

-: Dial redone
-: Hands replaced
-: watch case polished beyond recognition , all detail is gone
-: movement has file marks
-: no supporting documentation of any kind
-: movement bridge seems to be engraved , not stamped, so in my opinion done by someone other than Breitling

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

Phil's Mark Heist documentation.

I am not seeing a clear statement that this watch is 100% original and left the factory like this ?
I only see it was serviced , and the bezel doesnt line up
it says absolutely nothing about the originality of the watch

but even if it had I would still have my doubts based on the points I have described before

anyway , thanks for sharing

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

I am glad to hear of your skeptisism Dracha. I have been expecting that. Keep in mind, just becase you haven't seen something before does not mean it is not 'unique'. I mean, that is the definition of 'unique'. We learn something new everyday, right?
Also, your experience in 'manufacturing' means nothing to me unless you were 'manufacturing' Breitling AVI's in the early to mid 50's. But, of course, if you were we could not be having this discussion, as you would have all the answers.
If this chronograph was manufactured in batches of 100 or 1000, as you have suggested, show me the other 99 to 999 of them from the batch with the same bezel defect. I mean this defect must have only been found on Breitling's earliest design of the rotating bezel. If I had been a 'manufacturer' at Breitling during the run of this perticular watch with the bezel defect, I would have kicked my own ** and would have tried desperately to recall or return these for repairs. I mean that is a perfect example of 'bad manufacturing practices', right? This bezel defect is staring the customer in the face every time he wears it! Why would the customer repair or replace parts in this chronograph without addressing the bezel problem. This is pivital. I am not in 'manufacturing', but I would suspect realigning the rotating bezel would not have been a difficult fix?
I know this doesn't matter here either, but I have been a systems troubleshooter for over 27 years. I come across seeminly 'unique' situations or problems from time to time. But by using currently known good values, theory, reasoning and deduction, I attemt to 'rule out' possible variables instead of discounting them. (someone saw the 1st Cahow bird after it was thought to be extinct for some 300 years and yet someone saw one -that was 'unique' even though I would guess he suspected there were others). Either way, you sir come at this from one end, and I come at it from the oposite end. That is perfect! This way, we have a good chance to resolve this perticular puzzle or sorts.
First, I must tell you, I am not german. However I hail from Milwaukee and I love Beer and Brats! I hope this does not affect my credability? Ha.
If we agree that the 3 register was made in 1953, that would explain the dial hands and serial number. Also the 15 minute gear set for the minutes counter has been confirmed as the early design for the 3 register AVI for 1953. Non gilt movement is ruled out since they were also steel during this year. The question relating to the Wakmann connection:
Is it possible that during the Breitling USA/ Wakmann marketing and distribution changeover time-line that some of these early AVI's with this defect 'fell through the cracks' and were in fact sold or shipped in Wakmann boxes but still bear the 'BOW' import code of Breitling USA?
The "Breitling Watch corp. swiss" marking is unusual, maybe not 'unique' and this is the next research job for me.
I am in need of pictures or information regarding this early AVI defect - again, I believe this flaw to be extremely important to this discussion.
To end, 'unless lther pieces surface which have all of the characteristics, I stick to my original thougt, which is this watch is 'unique' and did leave the factory like this.
Thanks to all members who have contributed to this discussion and look forward to more discussion. I highly respect the opinions here as well as the opinion of my watchmaker. And thanks to you also Dracka - got to have a little fun here, right?

After reading this highly educating thread for awhile, it's a toss up for me...

Part of me says anomaly and with "supporting" documentation from the Heists, tells me it's legit... but...

the wimpy side of me tells me it's something I've never seen before too so it makes me a bit iffy... maybe I'll need to see another one like this to seal the deal?

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

that would definitely help , if we see another one just like this with a serial number from the same year they both might be genuine and left the factory like this and at least we have material to compare , but if we dont see another one just like this from the same series (serial number/year) in the next few years do we conclude it didnt leave the factory like this ?

_________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Breitling and Boats. The rest I wasted" - mostly Elmore Leonard

As you know, I have been searching for this 'defect' confirmation picture also, realizing this may be the last hurdle for verification purposes. But, I will step it up. All I can say for sure, to my satisfaction at least, is that Mr. Heist (Horological Serivces) states, referring to this defect "This is a manufacturing defect we have seen in many of the early 765 AVI models." That being said, even though I cannot say for sure, I 'know' there are others to be found. After confirmation, the question will get to the quality, condition and features of the individual piece(s) I would think.
I realize once another watch such as is this confirms the defect and some of the 'yet to be seen' details for the time, it would be a piece of wristwatch chronograph history- Breitling Chronograph history for sure.
Also, I feel it is time to provide the 'unedited' corrospondance between Mr. Heist and I. I am hoping this will not affect our diagnosis. This is the first time I have had it serviced. It was inoperable when it was added to my coin collection in 1979 or so. I am not sure if this is helpful to this subject or not. Please read them carefully since it is important to note what was and wasn't replaced as well as the real lack of cosmetic restoration that was needed after all these years.
If I can offer anything else, please let me know.
Thanks to all for the fantastic information and purpose! And thank you 'Vintage' for help in posting my pictures. (me? vinyl expert, computer dumb**)
And I agree, it is a beautiful watch.
Thanks again.

Additional images.